SALINAS V NLRC (ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO 319 SCRA 54 November 24, 1999

FACTS:
Ps were employed with Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (AG&P). Salinas was a carpenter from 1983-1988, Alejandro a bulk cement
operator and crane driver from 1982-1989 as bulk cement operator, Cortez a carpenter and forklift operator from 1979-1988, and
Samulde a lubeman and stationary operator from 1982-1989.
The 5 Ps filed separate complaints (consolidated by LA) for illegal dismissal;
LA: dismissed petitions on ground that Ps are project employees whose work contracts with AG&P indicate that they were employed in
such category; that they have been assigned to different specific projects, not just to one and that their work relation with AG&P is
governed by Policy Instruction No. 20 (rule governing project employees).
o Note: Policy Instruction No.20 requires the employer to report to the nearest Public Employment Office the fact of termination of
project employee as a result of the completion of the project.
P: averred that they had been covered by a number of contracts renewed continuously, with periods ranging from 5 to 9 yrs, and they
performed the same kind of work throughout their employment, and such was usually necessary and desirable in the trade or business of
AG&P; and their work did not end on a project-to-project basis, although AG&P made it appear that they were project employees by
signing separate employment contracts.
R maintains that P were under project employment, which is not deemed regular but a separate category. It cited that Department Order
19 amended Policy Instruction No. 20, which allows re-hiring of project workers on a project to project basis and which considers the
report of termination of employment a mere indicator of project employment.
NLRC (on appeal): affirmed LAs findings.

ISSUE: WON the Ps are merely project employees. NO, they are regular employees.

RULING: The Court ruled that Ps are regular employees.

In the Caramol case, the petitioner (contract renewed 44 times where he did same work) was deemed a regular employee as
manifested by the successive employment contracts where he was made to perform the same kind of work as a rigger, which was usually
necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of AG &P. In the case of Samson, the Court has pronounced: The mandate in Article
281 of the Labor Code, which pertinently prescribes that the provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless
of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer AND that any employee who has
rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists, should apply in the case of
petitioner (Samson).

The Court likewise upheld the validity of a project-to-project basis contract of employment, provided that the period
was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon
the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former x x x.
However, this Court warned, where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of
tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good custom or public order.

PI No. 20 (wc required that if company does not report termination to Nearest Employment Office , employees were not project
employees) was amended by DO 19. The Court also said that D.O. 19 did not totally dispense with the notice requirement, but instead, made
provisions therefor, and considered it as one of the indicators (indicator lang siya) that a worker is a project employee. In Section 6.1 of
the DO, it reads:
6.1. Requirements of labor and social legislations.(a) The construction company and the general
contractor and/or subcontractor shall be responsible for the workers on matters of compliance with the
requirements of existing laws and regulations on hours of work, wages, wage-related benefits, health,
safety and social welfare benefits, including submission to the DOLE
Terminations/Dismissals/Suspensions and other reports. x x x.

This provision is prospective in effect, otherwise, it would be prejudicial to the employees and would run counter to
the constitutional mandate on social justice and protection to labor, and such interpretation is more in accord with the purpose of the D.O.

It is basic rule that in carrying out and interpreting the provisions of Labor Code and its implementing regulations, the
workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. The interpretation herein made gives meaning and
substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law enunciated in Art 4 of Labor Code that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be
resolved in favor of labor".

In this case, Ps had been providing the respondent corporation with continuous and uninterrupted services, except for
a day or so gap in their successive employment contracts. They had been performing the same kinds of work which were usually necessary
for the business of the company. Their contracts had been renewed several times, with the total length of their services ranging from 5 to 9
years. Throughout the duration of their contracts, they had been performing the same kinds of work (e.g., as lubeman, bulk cement operator
and carpenter), which were usually necessary and desirable in the construction business of AG&P, its usual trade or business. The periods
were undoubtedly imposed to preclude their acquisition of security of tenure, and must be struck down for being contrary to public policy,
morals, good customs, and public order.

DISPOSITION
The questioned Resolution of the NLRC is SET ASIDE and another one is hereby ENTERED ordering the respondent corporation to
reinstate petitioners without loss of seniority and with full back wages.